These are my notes from the first paper, ‘Object-Orientated Democracies: Contradictions, Challenges And Opportunities’ in the Theoretical Frameworks session chaired by Darren Peacock at Museums and the Web 2008. I’ll post the others later because the ‘real world’ is calling me to a 30th now.
I didn’t blog these at the time because I wanted to read the papers properly before talking about them. I probably still need a bit longer to digest them, but the longer I leave it the more vague my memory will get and the less likely I am to revisit the papers, so please excuse (and contact me to correct!) any mistakes or misinterpretations. I’m not going to summarise the papers because you can go read them for yourself at the links below (one of the truly fantastic things about the Museums and the Web conferences, IMO), I’m just pulling out the bits that pinged in my brain for whatever reason. My comments on what was said are in [square brackets] below.
The papers were Object-centred democracies: contradictions, challenges and opportunities by Fiona Cameron, Who has the responsibility for saying what we see? mashing up Museum and Visitor voices, on-site and online by Peter Samis and The API as Curator by Aaron Straup Cope.
Darren introduced the session theme as ‘the interplay between theory and practice’.
Fiona Cameron, Object-orientated democracies.
Museums use currently collections to produce stable, ordered, certain meanings. Curators are the gateway to a qualified interpretation of the object. [Classification and ordering as a wish-fulfilment exercise in ‘objective’, scientific recording, regardless of social or cultural context?]
However, the ‘networked’ (online, digital?) object overturns hierarchical museum classifications and closed museum-specific interpretive paradigms.
Online objects taking ‘active role in social networks and political agendas’. [Objects re-appropriated in role as cultural signifiers by the communities they came from – cool!]
‘Heritage significance is where the museum meets pop culture.’
Collection information becomes fluid when released into network, flow, subject to interactions with other resources and ideas.
From the paper: “Clearly, the more technology facilitates a networked social structure and individual cultural expression, as seen most recently with Web 2.0, the more difficult it becomes for museums to produce universal or consensual meanings for their collections.”
[Why would museums want to (claim to) produce universal meanings anyway? One of the exciting possibilities of linking from each of our online objects to its instance in various museum projects is the potential to expose the multiplicity of interpretations and narrative contexts produced around any single object, even within the same museum. Also, projects like ‘Reassessing What We Collect’ are an acknowledgement that a ‘universal’ reading is in fact problematic.]
Bruno La Tour: object-orientated democracies. “For too long, objects have been wrongly portrayed as matters of fact.”
Objects as mediators in assertion of associations, not just cultural symbols. How are competing readings inscribed in collections documentation context?
Collections wikis – how interactions between museum and public culture might inform new collection spaces.
Test cases for ‘Reconceptualising Heritage Collections’ – politically charged objects – coin and wedding dress. Wiki and real time discussion with curators, Palestinian Australians, Jewish readings of the same objects – many different readings.
Placing objects in open/public wiki was seen as problematic – assault on Palestinian culture. Role of museums in this… protection, ‘apolitical gatekeeper’, governance?
Collections as complex systems. [Complexity as problem to be smoothed out in recording.]
Objects derive meaning and significance from a large number of elements, multi/inter/disciplinary or from outside the museum walls. [Too much on that slide to read!]
Curators as expert groups within proposed systems; group boundaries are permeable. Static museum categories become more ambiguous as objects are interpreted in unexpected, interesting ways. Role in mapping social world around a collections item. Equilibrium vs chaos?
“Objects are able to perform at a higher level of complexity.”
Issues re: museum authority and expertise, tensions between hierarchical structures and flexible networks, sustainable documentation practice, manage complexity.
[I think one of the reasons I liked this so much on a personal level is that it has a lot of parallels to the thinking I had to do about recording structures for post-processual archaeology at Çatalhöyük Archaeological Project – relational archaeological databases as traditionally conceived don’t support the recording of ambiguity, uncertainty, plurality, multiplicity or of interpretative context.
I also like the sense of possibilities in a system that at first might seem to undermine curatorial or organisational authority – “Objects are able to perform at a higher level of complexity”. The role of museums, and the ways curators work, might change, but both museums and curators are still valued.]